Hello everyone, While quite a few drafts have been using attributes to carry weird information into BGP, this one proposes to use MP. I can see how one may think it would be helpful and reduce implementation burgen but I am not sure it is wise and I believe it goes beyond what AFI/SAFI are for.
Also this reminds me very much of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message which I implemented but never saw traction. So while I can see why this would benefit operational matters, I do not believe the RFC as proposed should be accepted. Sorry for being such a party pooper ! Thomas On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 14:38, Rayhaan Jaufeerally (IETF) <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear GROW chairs and participants, > > I would like to propose draft-jaufeerally-bgp-lg-cap-00 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jaufeerally-bgp-lg-cap/) as a > mechanism for in-band dissemination of looking glass endpoints in BGP, > using a new OPEN message capability. > > The rationale behind this is to facilitate automation around eBGP peering, > for example to make it possible to automatically detect if the peer has > accepted some routes which are expected to be accepted. > > I'm aware that the underlying RFC8522 is an informational RFC and leaves > some details unspecified for the response format (i.e. a schema for the > queries/responses) but I believe that can be further refined in other works > independent to this proposal. > > I would like to hear what the WG thinks, if this is a reasonable proposal > which fits into the broader charter of GROW? > > Thanks, > Rayhaan > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
